Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC554; 1960CriLJ671; (1960)IIMLJ1(SC); [1960]2SCR671
Kapur, J.1. These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise the question of the constitutionality of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act (XXI of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the Act. As the petitions raise a common question of law they may conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. 2. The allegation of the petitioners was that various actions had been taken against them by the respondents which violated their fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(f) and (g). They also challenged the Act because it contravened the provisions of Art. 14 and Arts. 21 and 31. 3. The Act passed on April 30, 1954, came into force on April 1, 1955, along with the rules made thereunder. As provided in its preamble it was 'An Act to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities and to provide for matters connected therewith.' The petitioners in Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC457; [1960]2SCR646
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 23, 1959, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1958. S. K. Acharya and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants. S. M. Bose, Advocate-General for, the State of West Bengal, K. C. Mukherjee and P. K. Bose, for the respondent. 1959. December 18. The judgment of Sinha, C. J., Gajendragadkar and Shah, JJ. was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. The judgment of Sarkar and Subba Rao, JJ. was delivered by Sarkar, J. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal by special leave challenges the vires of S. 2(b) and the proviso to s. 4(1) of the West Bengal Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952 (W.B. Act XIV of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act). A complaint was filed against Kangsari Haldar and Jogendra Nath Guria (hereinafter called the appellants) in which it was alleged that the appellants along with some others had committed offences under s. 120B read with ss....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC487; 1960CriLJ676
J.L. Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated May 17, 1956. At the relevant time, i.e., between May 1, 1953, and June 2, 1954, the appellant was a Naib-Tehsildar at Ferozepur Jhirka in the district of Gurgaon. The allegation against the appellant was that during his tours in the several villages of Ferozepur Jhirka Tehsil, his son who was a Director of the Starline Pictures Ltd., a film company of Delhi, accompanied him and at the time of mutations the appellant asked the parties whose mutation he was attesting to purchase shares in the company of his son and that many of such persons on being so pressed by the appellant purchased shares and did so because they were asked by the appellant who showed them official favours.2. The facts which have led to the conviction of the appellant are these. On June 8, 1954, the First Information Report against the appellant was filed under Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC475; [1960]2SCR627
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These three appeals which have been filed in this Court with certificates issued by the Punjab High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution are directed against the orders passed by the said High Court by which clause 11B of Iron and Steel (Control of Production & Distribution) Order, 1941 (hereinafter called the Order) has been declared unconstitutional and inoperative, and the criminal proceedings commenced against M/s. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal and others under the said clause 11B read with s. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act) have been quashed. M/s. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal Ltd., is a private limited company having its registered office at Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Since 1948, it has been registered as a stockholder by the Iron and Steel Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) under clause 2(d) of the Order. It appears that under clause 11B of the Order notifications had been issued from time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC493; [1960]2SCR569
Shah, J.1. Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC468; (1960)IIMLJ16(SC); [1960]2SCR609
Subba Rao, J. 1. The petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is filed by the Mineral Development Limited against the State of Bihar and another for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Bihar dated September 7, 1955, cancelling the petitioner's licence and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said order of cancellation. 2. One Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh (hereinafter called the proprietor) was that proprietor of Ramgarh and Serampur estates in the district of Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar. On December 29, 1947, the said proprietor executed a mining lease in favour of the Mineral Development Limited (hereinafter called the Company) for all minerals in respect of 3,026 villages for a period of 999 years. On or about January 3, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, granted the Company a licence bearing No. H.L. 261-H in form 'B' under s. 6 of the Bihar Mica Act 1947 (hereinafter calle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC548; [1960]2SCR592
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by C. I. Emden (hereinafter called the appellant) who has been convicted under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The case against him was that he had accepted a bribe of Rs. 375 from Sarat Chandra Shukla on January 8, 1953. The appellant was a Loco Foreman at Alambagh Loco Shed, and Shukla had secured a contract at the same place for the removal of cinders from ash pits and for loading coal. This contract had been given to Shukla in June 1952. The prosecution case was that the appellant demanded from Shukla Rs. 400 per month in order that Shukla may be allowed to carry out his contract peacefully without any harassment. Shukla was told by the appellant that he had been receiving a monthly payment from Ram Ratan who had held a similar contract before him and that it would be to his interest to agree to pay the bribe. Shukla, however...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC569; 26(1960)CLT255(SC); 1960CriLJ750; [1960(1)FLR520]; (1960)ILLJ270SC; [1960]2SCR605
Shah, J.1. The question which falls to be determined in this group of appeals is whether field workers, i.e., Supervisors and Kamdars employed by a sugar factory to guide, supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for use in the sugar factory are employees of a 'Commercial Establishment' within the meaning of the United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, XXII if 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Magistrate who tried the respondents for offences under s. 27 of the Act held that the field workers were employees of a Commercial Establishment. The High Court at Allahabad took a contrary view, and the State of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this court against the order of the High Court with special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 2. The United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947 was enacted to regulate the hours of employment and certain other conditions of employment in shops and commercial establishments. Commercial Est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC500; (1960)62BOMLR371; 1960CriLJ682; [1960]2SCR460
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 16/20th, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in Confirmation case No. 25 of 1958 with Criminal Appeal No. 1372 of 1958, arising out of. the judgment and order dated October 27, 1958, of the Sessions Judge, Poona, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1958. A. S. R. Chtiri, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant. H. N. Seervai, Advocate-General for the State of Bombay, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1959. December 14. The Judgment of S. K. Das and Hidayatullah, JJ., was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate Judgment. HIDAYATULLAH J.-This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court [J. C. Shah, J. (now of the Supreme Court) and V. S. Desai, J.] by which it maintained the conviction of the appellant, Lagu, under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and confirmed the sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC675; (1960)ILLJ523SC
Subba Rao, J.1. This batch of three connected appeals raises the question whether and to what extent the activities of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur come under the definition of 'industry' in s. 2(14) of the C.P. & Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The appellant is the corporation of the City of Nagpur constituted under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (Madhya Pradesh Act No. 2 of 1950). Disputes arose between the corporation and the employees in various departments of the corporation in respect of wage scales, gratuity, provident fund, house rent, confirmation, allowances etc. The Government of the State of Madhya Pradesh by its order dated October 23, 1956, referred the said disputes under s. 39 of the Act to the state industrial Court, Nagpur and the reference was numbered as Industrial Reference No. 18 of 1956. The appellant filed a state October 23, 1956, referred the said disputes under s. 39 of the Act to the State In...
Tag this Judgment!